Friday, October 29, 2010

Hey guys- I'm on the road to see my college roommate get married and then if I'm lucky I might even manage to make my way up to Kentucky to volunteer for the homestretch of the election up there.

So I apologize for no other posts than this today, but I am excited to announce that I have hired an Assistant Editor for The Humble Libertarian whose job it will be to make sure that excellent content gets up on this blog every single morning (during the week) like clockwork!

It's finally time I humbled myself to realize I need a lot of help to keep this blog running and growing- I just can't manage it all myself and continue to write more and manage my other enterprises. You will get to meet the new Assistant Editor in an update to this blog next week! (Though I can't promise whether it will be Monday or Wednesday.)

In the meantime, please use the comment thread below to discuss and debate your predictions and analysis for the mid-term election Tuesday!

Thursday, October 28, 2010

"What if there's no one good to vote for?" I have had multiple friends and associates ask me this question over the past two weeks and now that we're down to the home stretch, it's time to address a very important question with a very frank answer: Don't vote.

If you don't have anyone good to vote for in your district or state, no one you're excited about, no one who you think will do much to make things better, then it is perfectly acceptable- indeed very rational and prudent- to not vote.

Especially don't be fooled by the conventional "wisdom" that the lackluster candidate in your district will at least be better than the alternative, so you should go out and vote for the lesser of two evils. That's why we keep getting more evil at every level of government.

Voting is usually a waste of time

The truth is that for the most part, it's irrational to vote- that's why so few Americans do it. While pundits and politicians complain about low voter turnout, the fact is that voting is usually a waste of time.

Think about it: what are the odds in any given election that your vote will actually affect the outcome? Can you name any election for a state or national office that you or anyone you know has ever voted in where if they had stayed home that day, the outcome would have been any different?

Furthermore, let's say against all odds that your vote would count in a particular election. That going out and casting your ballot would mean the difference between one or another candidate taking office. In most elections, how different are the two candidates really?

How much would change if one versus the other were to win? Or would public policy mostly stay the same and proceed in the same general direction whichever candidate you happened to choose with your once-in-a-lifetime decisive vote? The fact is, most things stay the same, whichever candidate wins.

There are few candidates who actually stand out from the rest- and make no mistake- this holds true across party lines. Democrats grow government and so do Republicans. Democrats are corrupt and so are Republicans. In most elections, it doesn't matter which candidate wins.

So when should I vote? The "Mob Factor"

Now don't be disheartened! I'm not saying you should never, ever vote. While it is usually irrational for a person to vote, it's not irrational for mobs of people to vote. One person almost never changes the outcome of an election- but mobs of people can and do swing elections all the time. That's how Barack Obama beat out both Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008.

So here's my simple little rule: the only time I ever go out and vote is if and only if I am willing to vote as part of a mob of people- in other words if I am willing to campaign hard for the candidate to get others to vote with me, if I am willing to knock on doors and grow the candidate's "mob" of voting supporters, if I am willing to give the candidate money (perhaps even more than I can comfortably afford) so that he (or she) can run ads to get more voters... then and only then will I vote. Then and only then is it rational to vote.

The catch: a good candidate

The catch to all this of course is that this candidate would have to be pretty special. It would have to be someone I support very strongly, someone I believe stands apart from most candidates, someone I trust to actually vote and govern differently than most politicians do, and someone who I believe has a reasonable chance of winning (i.e. you will not see me on the campaign trail for a Libertarian Party presidential candidate anytime soon).

If there is no such candidate out there in a district or state that you are able to vote in- if there is no one you support strongly enough that you would be willing to volunteer time and money for their campaign- then do not vote. It is a waste of your valuable time.

So what do I do then?

But don't worry- there's still lots you can do. If you don't have anyone like that in your district or state to vote for, then instead of taking an hour to find your voting location this Tuesday, drive there, wait in line, vote, and drive home use that hour of precious time to help a candidate that you support in another state or district.

If you believe in liberty like me, I can name you at least five solid 2010 midterm candidates in close races that need your help in this home stretch. Just because you don't live in a good candidate's state or district, that doesn't mean that you can't donate to that candidate or volunteer to make phone calls for him/her from the comfort of your own home.

Taking an hour (or two or three) this Friday, Saturday, or Sunday to grow a good candidate's "mob" of voters by calling voters in that candidate's district or state and urging them to vote is a MUCH BETTER use of your time than going out and voting alone for a mediocre candidate in your district. If you have the time to waste voting in a scenario like that, stay home (or at the office) on Tuesday and use that time in the weekend before to actually make a real difference in a close race for a candidate that you believe would do some good.

If you are unsure of where to begin, contact me and I can get you a list of names to call and a script to use for any of multiple close races with solid candidates. You can probably even just e-mail the campaign yourself and offer to help. You can also check their website to see if they have anything about how to volunteer for their phonebanking efforts.

Or you can decide to take the hour off altogether and drop a donation on a candidate you support. They can (and will!) use that in the home stretch to buy important ads and pay for expenses in their massive get-out-the-vote efforts. How much is an hour of your time worth? And the gas you would save from driving to and from the voting location in your area? Even $25 makes a difference, especially if every liberty-loving patriot takes the advice in this column.

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 27, 2010 -- The Department of Justice has squandered an opportunity to address the rampant sexual abuse of detained youth, choosing instead to minimize this crisis. In the executive summary of its new "Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Correctional Facilities," the Department's Review Panel on Prison Rape claims that a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) "indicated that violent sexual assault in juvenile facilities was relatively rare and facility staff, for the most part, did not victimize juvenile offenders."

"In fact," said Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director of Just Detention International, "the BJS estimated that almost one in eight kids behind bars had been sexually victimized during a 12-month period, the vast majority of them -- 80 percent -- by staff whose job it is to keep them safe. Many endured repeated abuse, often more than ten times, and frequently by multiple perpetrators. I simply don't understand how that is 'rare.'"

Testimony from the report makes clear that many youth corrections administrators consider staff sexual abuse of detained youth to be largely consensual, or the result of youth manipulation. The Department of Justice perpetuates that view by insisting that most staff sexual abuse of juveniles is not "violent."

"These are teenagers and children we're talking about," said Stannow, "and corrections staff have immense power over their lives. They can influence when juvenile detainees are released; they can put them in solitary confinement; they can house vulnerable youth with inmates who are known to be violent or sexual predators; they can even deny these kids basic hygiene items. The very notion of any sort of consensual sexual relationship between juveniles and adults in such circumstances is grotesque."

Just Detention International hears daily from survivors of sexual abuse in detention, both youth and adults. In many of their letters, survivors emphasize the fact that they did not put up a fight because they were completely at the mercy of officials. One such survivor, Robin, said, "I did what I was told to do, because I wanted to go home." Another, Toni, explained, "People think rape is rape only when someone has a gun to your head. Prison officials don't need a gun; they already have full control over you." Every act of sexual contact between a staff member and a detainee, under any circumstances, is a crime in all 50 states. If the detainee is a minor, it is also child abuse. The Panel failed to acknowledge these basic legal facts in its report.

This week's report derives from hearings that the Panel held in June 2010 with officials from juvenile facilities identified in the BJS study as having some of the highest and lowest rates of sexual abuse. The Panel heard from two facilities where detainees reported zero sexual abuse -- the Ft. Bellefontaine Campus in Missouri and the Rhode Island Training School -- and three with some of the highest rates of abuse: Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana, Woodland Hills Youth Development Center in Tennessee, and Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas. At the facilities with the highest rates of abuse, between 26 and 36 percent of youth reported having been victimized in the preceding 12 months.

"The Review Panel's report clearly illustrates the difference in philosophy between facilities with low levels of abuse and those with high levels. Facilities that focus on treating youth with dignity and facilitating their healthy development are safer and more successful. As such, this week's report is much needed. It is unfortunate, however, that the Review Panel didn't use this opportunity to define the problem of sexual abuse of detained youth as the human rights crisis that it is," said Stannow.

While the executive summary minimizes the problem of sexual violence in youth detention and downplays the importance of the landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the body of the report contains important information and recommendations.

One conclusion of the report is that institutional culture is a key predictor of sexual abuse. The Missouri Department of Youth Services is nationally recognized for the therapeutic model followed in its facilities. Conversely, the Indiana Division of Youth Service's Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility relies on a punitive approach, and one in three youth reported sexual victimization there.

The report also highlights the importance of hiring qualified staff and training them properly. It particularly emphasizes the vital role of strong professional boundaries for staff. The BJS study found that 95 percent of abuse reported by male youth was committed by female staff. In light of this, the Panel calls for more research into the dynamics of cross-gender supervision, effective training regimens, and the development of best practices.

The Review Panel's hearings and the BJS study were mandated by PREA, which also called for the development of national standards addressing sexual abuse in detention. A bipartisan commission developed such standards, which were submitted to Attorney General Holder in June 2009. Under the law, Holder had one year to publish a final rule; he missed the deadline, and has not indicated when he will promulgate the regulations.

"We wholeheartedly support the Panel's recommendations for further research," added Stannow. "But we already have a critical set of tools to combat prisoner rape at our disposal -- the national standards that await the Attorney General's approval. It's past time for these measures to become binding on facilities across the country."

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

On "Morning Joe" after the Kentucky debate between U.S. Senate contenders Rand Paul and Jack Conway, Joe Scarborough draws parallels between Rand Paul and Ronald Reagan on the basis of Rand Paul's poise, intelligence, and ability to skillfully articulate libertarian positions in the face of hostile criticism. Listen below:

Later in the video, Pat Buchanan also remarks on how "senatorial" the Bowling Green physician looked during the debate, as contrasted with Jack Conway, who Buchanan said looked like a "wise-acre pupil... throwing smart aleck cracks and comments."

-The Texas Rangers and the San Francisco Giants are currently facing off in the World Series. -The #1 ranked team in college football has lost in three consecutive weeks. -The Kansas City Chiefs and the Seattle Seahawks are currently division leaders in the NFL.

And this is exactly what each of these parent organizations is striving for. The idea that any team can win, in any given year, and in any given week. Why? For the money. These organizations all have a vested financial interest in parity.

Because it's not fun seeing the Yankees in the World Series every year. And not only that, but when the division winner each year is a certainty, the teams destined for failure don't exactly sell out their home games. And they don't get great TV deals. And they don't sell as much merchandise. And Major League Baseball doesn't get as big of a cut. So, they tweak the system. Salary caps. Trade rules. Drafting equality. In order to create parity that creates more competition.

Now, here's the problem. Many people think that's more or less how the U.S. economy works. If we create more parity, then the sum total of every individual's revenue will be higher, right? We'll all have more fun, and the Fed will get a bigger cut. But, we're not Major League Baseball. We don't have a monopoly on an industry. We're competing against 191 other countries in an infinite amount of professions. Leveling the playing field only works when you control the whole field. And we don't.

So, while the rules are very very different, there's one economic takeaway to learn from both situations. Major League Baseball as a whole makes more money by having more competitive teams. And the U.S. economy as a whole makes more money by having more competitive individuals.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

"'The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.'

"These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.

"What brings his words to mind is news that 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.

"If you would chart America’s decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.

"Yet no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead."

(Quick note to Calvin: Dude -- publishing lists on multiple pages is the most annoying publishing habit on the Internet ever.)

Notice to begin with, the totally disproportionate hyperbole of the title. While the author in his list accuses Ron Paul supporters of suffering from various derangements (e.g. against President Lincoln, or against the Jews) it is invective like that in his title which exemplifies the derangement that Horowitz types have for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's disagreements with them over foreign policy and history make him an "abomination" worthy only to be ostracized and exiled, despite his 20 year record as the taxpayer's best friend in Washington, an outspoken advocate for the Second Amendment, and a tireless sponsor of aggressive pro-life legislation.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, to pass an unbalanced budget, or to raise congressional pay -- and he's never taken a government-paid junket. Despite his model conservatism on all these issues, the man is an "abomination" for daring to suggest that the same feckless Washington establishment which breeds more poverty with its misguided War on Poverty might just breed more terrorism with its War on Terrorism.

While they are ever-willing to compromise on some (or all) of their alleged conservative principles to support and defend men like George W. Bush and John McCain, neoconservatives will apparently never compromise in the other direction and support or defend someone like Congressman Paul, or even be willing to tolerate his existence in their version of a "decent society." Talk about derangement.

"Why would conservatives in California oppose a proposition that supporters are calling the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative?

Because it doesn't do a thing to address California's runaway spending and skyrocketing deficit. In fact the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office concluded it would add an additional $1 billion in transportation spending and General Fund costs to California's budget each year.

If conservatives have learned anything from eight years of George W. Bush- and the Tea Party's powerful influence might indicate that they have- it's that cutting taxes while increasing spending only plunges the government into more debt, and the taxpayer into more financial obligations down the road."

Monday, October 25, 2010

I attended the Nullify Now conference in Chattanooga this past Saturday the 23rd, and I learned all manner of 10th Amendment solutions to our problem of Federal tyranny. But I did detect something that made me uneasy- faith in politicians.

To quote Mike Rothfeld, "The politician is not your friend," regardless of what level of government they are working on. City, County, State, Metro, Federal, Global, Galactic, it does not matter which.

Now, when the new Federalism is achieved through nullification of any and all Federal actions not in line with Article I Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, we will still have a problem. Having made the Federal government's powers few and defined, the State government's powers will again be numerous and infinite just as our country was designed. However as libertarians, unlimited power for state governments is still not ok.

So what does that mean? What are we to do then? Why we keep with our plan of nullification of course! Here's why:

State politicians are still scoundrels, but on a more localized level it takes far less resources and time to keep them in check by controlling their environment. My point here is that our fight does not stop when Federal tyranny is checked. After all the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, no matter how bright affairs seem. After all, for every Rep. Susan Lynn there is also a despicable Sen. Lowell Barron.

We will have our Nullification Revolution, yes, but don't think that the R3volution stops there. Indeed I have great faith that we will keep up the fight. As state politics becomes more of a driving force in this country the average person will begin to notice that local and state elections matter.

We will see more Tea Parties, Campaigns for Liberty, and other new kinds of organizations altogether directed to the local and state level. I don't anticipate people going home to their boob tubes when the battle appears to be done- no I see the People staying energized when the States have asserted their rights.

I would hope that we all will have learned that no member of the political class is our friend, nor any less of a threat to our liberty than another.

The CaperThis is urgent- I'm writing to ask for volunteers to do some phone banking for a Ron Paul-endorsed U.S. House candidate in North Carolina. Please respond to this post via e-mail (wemessamore@gmail.com) by Noon (12:00) EDT tomorrow (Tuesday, October 26, 2010) if you are free tomorrow evening (again- Tuesday, October 26, 2010) at 7 pm EDT (4 pm PDT) for two hours. We'll do a brief conference call (I'll send you the number to call) to go over a script which I'll e-mail you, answer any questions you have, and then get started on a list of people to call (I'll also e-mail you the spreadsheets with their names and phone numbers, which the campaign will provide).

The CandidateHis name is Dr. William "B.J." Lawson. BJ is the Republican candidate running against Rep. David Price, a 22 year Democratic incumbent who votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other Congressman. Lawson is a Washington and political outsider, small business owner, Ron Paul-endorsed, and dedicated to curtailing the size, role, and influence of Washington DC.

The Cause (why I'm asking you to volunteer)Although Lawson is in a heavily Democratic district, an August 12 poll showed Lawson with a 46.5% to 46.1% advantage over Price. That is a tight race! With the overwhelming frustration voters have toward Democrats and incumbents this year, we might just be able to pull out a victory in this district and seat a freshman Congressman with every bit of principle and strong statesmanship that we have seen from Congressman Ron Paul! But with the race so tight and so much establishment money in the hands of Lawson's opponent, this will ONLY happen if we push hard for him in the final stretch (which is right now!).

The ConclusionLawson is very young and has many years ahead of him and a potentially bright future in politics advancing the message of limited government, individual liberty, and the Constitutional rule of law. I have personally heard him speak in North Carolina, and he is one of the most articulate (and witty) defenders of liberty that I have ever had the privilege of meeting. We CANNOT afford to lose this race when victory is so close!

E-mail me back right away if you can do this tomorrow evening. Those of you who enjoyed it and would like to volunteer additional hours can be connected directly with the campaign and given more names to call throughout the rest of this week if you have an hour here or an hour there to spare for your future and mine!

'Meet John Dennis. He's the Ron Paul-endorsed, anti-war Republican nominee running against Pelosi for her U.S. House seat representing California's very liberal, 8th Congressional district, which includes most of San Francisco.

Dennis criticizes Pelosi for running a Congress that has allowed warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, torture, military tribunals, the Patriot Act, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the open-ended wars in the Middle East all to go on unabated. He supports allowing Americans more freedom to make their own "lifestyle choices" about sexuality and drug consumption.'

Friday, October 22, 2010

I intend to ask the question, "Is it libertarian to dumpster dive?" -dumpster diving being the activity of retrieving food products from dumpsters or grocers and feeding them to people that need it.

The first obvious question is whether the grocer still possesses and owns the food upon placing it in the dumpster. Well? There are two sides to this. On one hand, the owner of the dumpster would in concrete terms have ownership of the food and any other refuse in the dumpster.

But on the other hand, by discarding materials into the dumpster the grocer has arguably discharged ownership of the refuse. A case can be made for the food being ethically retrievable from a property rights standpoint.

If we accept this premise, then there are multiple organizations that can be embraced into the libertarian fold. An excellent example of this is Food Not Bombs. As quoted from their website homepage:

"Food Not Bombs shares free vegan and vegetarian meals with the hungryin over 1,000 cities around the world to protest war, poverty and the destruction of the environment. With over a billion people going hungry each day how can we spend another dollar on war?"

In so far as the feeding is not done through legal plunder I whole heartedly agree. How can we continue to spend another dime on interventionist imperialist wars?

Now of course FNB has a lot of very leftist and unlibertarianmessages and affiliations but they are half way there, as evidenced by the following sequential sentences,

"We hope you will join us in taking direct action towards creating a world free from domination, coercion and violence. Food is a right, not a privilege."

I'm totally down with a world free of domination, coercion, and violence (esp. at the hands of the state). And while food is not a human right, in the absence of programs like food stamps that are funded by theft, it is up to people like Food Not Bombs to voluntarily give food to people who have none. While Food Not Bombs is not totally libertarian, the act of giving food voluntarily to the hungry is.

What really is at stake here is expanding the awareness of the scope of the free market. After all, a free market is simply a system where people owning property are free to exchange it in whatever way pleases them. The progressives can be very down on businesses but they fail to realize that things like Freeganism, Really Really Free Markets, and giving away discarded food are all forms of voluntary exchange.

When a libertarian says, "welfare should be handled by private charity", this the most raw and real example of that. Charity isn't just a church coat drive it is ordinary people coming together to help people in need.

That is what Liberty is all about, giving people the flexibility and freedom to make their own decisions. Actions like those of Food Not Bombs are the fundamental fabric of a libertarian society.

"Before the Tea Party philosophy is ever even tested in America, it will have succeeded, or it will have failed, in Great Britain."

"For in David Cameron the Brits have a prime minister who can fairly be described as a Tea Party Tory. Casting aside the guidance of Lord Keynes — government-induced deficits are the right remedy for recessions — Cameron has bet his own and his party’s future on the new austerity. He is making Maggie Thatcher look like Tip O’Neill."

"Two headlines Thursday testify that the Tories have seized the Tea Party banner. First was the headline in The Washington Times, 'Tea Party Urges Drastic Cutting,' that carried a caveat subhead, 'Economists Question If Move Is Wise at This Time."

"Second was the Financial Times banner, 'UK Unveils Dramatic Austerity Cutbacks.' The FT story begins, 'The U.K.’s conservative-led coalition has announced the most drastic budget cuts in living memory..."

"The sweeping cuts in entitlements and spending far exceed anything contemplated in the U.S., where Barack Obama … has proposed only a three-year freeze on discretionary spending and Congress is still debating whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthy."

"The Tory budget cuts defense 8 percent and military personnel by 7,000. Translated here, that would mean a cut of $60 billion and about 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines."

"By 2015, some 490,000 public-sector employees, 8 percent of the total, will lose their jobs. The rest will have their wages frozen for two years and face a 3-percent-of-salary hike in compulsory contributions to their pension program. The retirement age will rise from 65 to 66."

It doesn't involve a conspiracy. It's simply what I label a theory you shouldn't take too seriously. Because it's my theory, and I'm not even sure if I do. But I can't stop wondering.

Today, NPR Senior National Correspondent Juan Williams was fired after remarks he made during a recent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor.

"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the Civil Rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I've got to tell you. If I see people who are in Muslim garb, and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous..."

The official statement from NPR on Williams' termination is that, "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

Now, NPR can fire whomever they want. They're subsidized by the government, so that might have played a role, in terms of sheer legality. But, we're lead to believe by this public statement that William's comments were simply too offensive/racist/unbecoming for an NPR employee.

But, what if it wasn't that? What if NPR fired him, at least partly, because they're nervous that statements like that might make both Williams and NPR, as an organization, a target for terrorism?

And they're afraid of the same people they're firing Williams for publicly saying he's afraid of.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

This campaign ad wins an award for honesty in advertising! Sad thing is how 100% accurate it is in parodying pretty much every politician out there. I hate it when people give "weird" candidates like Alvin Green a hard time, as if the rest of "mainstream" politicians weren't the biggest freak show in this country.

Kurt Wallace over at Liberty Pulse has also made a pretty awesome Aqua Buddha video, calling on all of Kentucky's Aqua Buddha Truthers to unite for Jack Conway. Lol! This is the weirdest election season ever.

"There's an ugly Alinskyite opportunism that runs deep in both parties and which has been perfectly exemplified in the recent events which have now been dubbed 'Whore-Gate' by the Internet blogosphere. It's almost as bad as the Alinskyite polarism that makes politics so irrationally extreme, so crudely personal, so blindly "us vs. them" that your opponent isn't just your opponent, but a whore."

Wes Messamore records some Contemporary Aqua Buddhist Music to have a good laugh at silly Jack Conway's expense. My album will be coming out after the election and available on iTunes for I think $10. Help me make this video go viral! Share it around. Embed it on your blogs and Facebook profiles. Tweet it out. Vote it up on Reddit. Thanks!

For more on the whole Aqua Buddha madness in the Kentucky U.S. Senate election between Rand Paul and Jack Conway, check out the following:

Monday, October 18, 2010

Reports(M)The Washington Post: "The Pentagon said Sunday that it has a 120-member team prepared to review a leak of as many as 500,000 documents about the Iraq war, which are expected to be released by the WikiLeaks Web site this month."

But despite the fact that we now know that the last leak did not endanger anyone in Afghanistan, nor reveal any sensitive intelligence (source via FDL), AND that it disclosed to Americans that the $1 BILLION of our tax dollars which are being sent to Pakistan every year by Washington are being used to coordinate attacks on OUR TROOPS...

Despite all that- we can expect the military-media complex to churn out plenty of propaganda and lies to evade, deflect, and diffuse the power of the information that WikiLeaks is disseminating to We the People.

Check out Glenn Greenwald's excellent breakdown of how it works here, and use that as a guide to your analysis of the media narrative regarding WikiLeaks and our Iraq foreign policy for the rest of this month and next.

"In President Sebastián Piñera’s shoes, Barack Obama would have undeniably acted much differently. He would have turned to his 'community organizing' background and been hamstrung by his naive and far-left, us-versus-them philosophical roots. He would have been paralyzed by a toxic combination of arrogant professorial theory and lack of real-world executive experience.

He would have attacked the mining company for the entire 69-day affair. He would have done so right off the bat. He would have copped out and stuck to a rigid, defeatist, backwards ideology. And in his failing, he would have put responsibility on everyone around him, except himself."